Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/244

 228 The KaPila and the Patafijala Sal!lkhya [CH. in some quarters to explain the validity of the Yoga processes, and it seems therefore that the association and grafting of the Sarpkhya metaphysics on the Yoga system as its basis, was the work of the followers of this school of ideas which was subsequently systematized by Patanjali. Thus Sakyayana says: "Here some say it is the gUI!a which through the differences of nature goes into bondage to the will, and that deliverance takes place when the fault of the will has been removed, because he sees by the mind; and all that we call desire, imagination, doubt, belief, un- belief, certainty, uncertainty, shame, thought, fear, all that is but mind. Carried along by the waves of the qualities darkened in his imagination, unstable, fickle, crippled, full of desires, vacil- lating he enters into belief, believing I am he, this is mine, and he binds his self by his self as a bird with a net. Therefore, a man being possessed of will, imagination and belief is a slave, but he who is the opposite is free. For this reason let a man stand free from will, imagination and belief-this is the sign of liberty, this is the path that leads to Brahman, this is the opening of the door, and through it he will go to the other shore of dark- ness. All desires are there fulfilled. And for this, they quote a verse: 'When the five instruments of knowledge stand still together with the mind, and when the intellect does not move, that is called the highest state}.' " An examination of such Yoga U paniads as SaI)9ilya, Y oga- tattva, Dhyanabindu, Harpsa, Amtanada, Varaha, MaI!9ala BrahmaI!a, N adabindu, and Y ogakuI!9alI, shows that the Yoga practices had undergone diverse changes. in diverse schools, but none of these show any predilection for the Sarpkhya. Thus the Yoga practices grew in accordance with the doctrines of the } Vatsyayana, however, in his bha!iiya on Ivyii)'a siltra, I. i. 29, distinguishes Sarpkhya from Yoga in the following way: The Sarpkhya holds that nothing can come into being nor be destroyed, there cannot be any change in the pure intelligence (lziratilaya!z cetanii!z). All changes are due to changes in the body, the senses, the manas and the objects. Yoga holds that all creation is due to the karma of the purua. Do (passions) and the pravrtti (action) are the cause of karma. The intelligences or souls (cetana, are associated with qualities. Non-being can come into being and what is produced may be destroyed. The last view is indeed quite different from the Yoga of VyiisabhiifJ'a. It is closer to Nyaya in its doctrines. If Vatsyayana's statcment is correct, it would appear that the doctrine of there being a moral purpose in creation was borrowed by Sarpkhya from Yoga. Udyotakara's remarks on the same siitra do not indicate a difference but an agreement between SaT)lkhya and Yoga on the doctrine of tht: illdriyas being" ahhautilm." Curiously enough V:ltsyayana quotes a passage from Vyiisahhiifya, III. I., in his bhaya, I. ii. 6, and criticizes it as self-con- tradictory (vi1'uddha).